Mastra FactoryFrom an issue
to a reviewed PR.

One issue. Three human checkpoints.

The official lifecycle runs through intake, triage, planning, building, review and completion. Below is our illustrative CSV scenario, not a measured Factory result.

Before you connect a repository

Adapt this original example to a repository you control. Replace the reproduction steps and expected behavior with your own; do not treat these sample acceptance criteria as your product requirements.

Title: CSV export contains headers but no selected rows

Reproduction: select two permitted rows and export CSV.
Observed: the file contains only a header.
Expected: the selected rows are included, with the existing columns.

Acceptance criteria:
- Two selected rows produce exactly two data rows.
- An empty selection follows the existing product behavior.
- Rows the user cannot access are never exported.
- Commas, quotes and line breaks remain valid CSV.

Scope: preserve the current permissions, columns and export UI.
Before building: identify the cause and propose the smallest fix.
Before merging: attach the relevant diff and actual check results.
Human reviewer: assign a repository maintainer.

At review, compare the exported rows with the selected IDs, inspect an empty selection and a denied-access case, and open a CSV containing punctuation. Record failures as well as passes. A created PR alone is not proof that the bug is fixed.

Is this the right starting point?

Our recommendation: consider Factory when a team needs a shared issue-to-PR workflow with human approval. For one small coding task, first check whether your existing coding assistant is sufficient.

Sources & verification

• Mastra Factory — product, workflow and setup
• Mastra source repository

SkillsHub explains external tools. This page does not run Factory or connect your repositories. Product facts are source-checked; the walkthrough and issue template are editorial examples.